My trigger finger is my safety

Status
Not open for further replies.
Test Pilot,

I am a pilot, and some of the guarded switches are used in flight. They are there to prevent activating something when unintended. There are also unguarded levers, that are purposely stiff so they resist being inadvertently moved.
Click to expand...

Yes, used "in flight," not in a "dog fight."

You are not using them during an air combat. If there are dozen switches on a pistol sticking out to the side that needs to stay where they are during a gun fight, then I would want guarded switch also, but that is not the case.

As far as some switches being purposely stiff, that is why Glock or M&P has 2.5~3 kg triggers instead of 2kg or less. Also, those switches on an aircraft being stiff does not affect your life since you are not aiming a gun with those switches. It's not like the fire button an a control stick being stiff makes an AIM-120 miss.

Also, guns have had one of the three provisions for loaded carry that I mentioned earlier since a very long time ago. That includes SA hammer down - which is the primary way Browning and the military intended the 1911 to be carried. Take a gander at the Remingont R51 thread with the information posted about the R53.

Hammer down with an SA trigger could be thought of as a variation of Condition 1 - you need to perform a step prior to pulling the trigger. That's true whether it is a muzzle loading single shot, a single action revolver, a Colt 1907 or a P7.
Click to expand...

Some of them did, but not all of them had those features for the reasons you mentioned. For example, the reason why DA pull was around 5kg was because of design limitations, not because there was a universal agreement that 5kg is necessary for safety.

Also, if some of the guns you mentioned were in fact designed to be carried with hammer in rest position, then it is a good thing gun designed evolved beyond it. No combat expert or big name trainers, or any government agencies that I am aware of advocates carrying a that way unless it is a DA.


All three methods were put forward to offer a way to carry a gun that didn't involve nothing more than an unblocked single action trigger. The P7 was a monumental effort to fix the problem. And Glock simply declared it a non-problem.
Click to expand...

I would agree that there was a time period in history where those methods were promoted as a safety measure, but not the entire history of firearms. I would also agree that period ended around the time Glock became popular/

However, the reason for firearms design moving towards the way of Glock and M&P is not because simply the risk of accidental discharge was ignored. It is because the three methods you mention also comes with their own set of risks while still allowing for accidental discharges, making them not any better than Glocks of M&Ps without those devices in regards to safety.
 
Last edited:
RX-79G said:
Test Pilot,
You are making the case that the history of firearm trigger design was based on some erroneous thinking, and Glock finally got it right several hundred years into things. Your arguments aren't incorrect, but they do buck what was understood about handgun handling until that point.

I don't think holster straps account for the majority of Glock NDs - but they are an example of the type of gun handling ND that lowered unblocked trigger weight contributes to. There are certainly others.

The question is really whether previous beliefs about firearms safety were erroneous in light of the new reasoning you present.


I wonder if you would appreciate it if all the guarded switches in your cockpit went away before your next flight?
Click to expand...

I think "previous beliefs about firearms safety" specifically regarding semiautomatics has been far from settled before the advent of the Glock.

Check out Post #44 here http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=739403&page=2

I have spent some time in cockpits. It has been many years but I certainly remember them. Comparing guarded switches in a cockpit to pistols having "unguarded" safety levers protecting only partially "guarded" triggers is a bit of a stretch.

I have been searching for statistics on gun safety since the 1980s. Nothing concrete yet, but so far my impression is that the sudden wide use of pistols without safety levers has not made much of difference. Statistically Glock seems to be right - it is a non-issue. Of course in reality it is an issue when it happens to you or someone you care about.
 
Last edited:
testpilot said:
For example, a stupid person with a Glock cannot say, "I pulled the trigger when I was not supposed to fire because I thought it was on 'safe'."
Click to expand...

Why can't they say that?

I've seen people pull the trigger on a double action revolver because they thought it was "on safe" and would not fire. You believe that just because a person touches a Glock they are automatically instilled with some great firearm knowledge and training?

Stupidity and idiocy is so common that there are common quotes known as "Murphy's Laws" about it:

- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
- Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently capable fool.
- Make something idiot-proof, and they will build a better idiot.

Kind of like the idiocy of using "manual firng inhibitor thumb lever" for safety and "manual firng inhibitor finger lever" for trigger. ;)
 
Posted by 45_auto:

Why can't they say that?

I've seen people pull the trigger on a double action revolver because they thought it was "on safe" and would not fire. You believe that just because a person touches a Glock they are automatically instilled with some great firearm knowledge and training?

Stupidity and idiocy is so common that there are common quotes known as "Murphy's Laws" about it:

- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious.
- Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently capable fool.
- Make something idiot-proof, and they will build a better idiot.
...
Click to expand...
Then that's more the reason Glock and M&P is better, according to you.

Kind of like the idiocy of using "manual firng inhibitor thumb lever" for safety and "manual firng inhibitor finger lever" for trigger.
Click to expand...
Since you coined the term "manual firng inhibitor finger lever" for trigger, and YOU are the only person who called a trigger that, you are calling yourself an idiot.
 
testpilot said:
Then that's more the reason Glock and M&P is better, according to you.
Click to expand...

Better for what? Uneducated people shooting themselves?

I'm glad that you agree that we're equally idiotic for using that stupid "inhibitor lever" terminology. Maybe there's hope for you in the new year!
 
For those of you who did not see this the first time.

Nom de Forum said:
danez71,


To all posting to this thread,

Can we PLEASE not fill it with cheap shot posts ridiculing Testpilot or anyone else for uses of terminology you don't like but don't really prevent us from understanding the message.

Thank you.
Click to expand...

Once understandable,
Twice an easy mistake,
Three times I will believe it is a deliberate attempt to get the thread closed because some people don't like what the thread subject implies. That is a very pathetic effort to silence those with whom you disagree.

I hope any moderators viewing this thread will issue a warning before closure.
 
Posted by Nom de Forum: To all posting to this thread,

Can we PLEASE not fill it with cheap shot posts ridiculing Testpilot or anyone else for uses of terminology you don't like but don't really prevent us from understanding the message.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I do not see comments about something as affected as the use of " manual firing inhibitor thumb lever" to describe something that is commonly called a safety switch as "cheap shots". Do we want to have people coining their own terms for triggers, barrels, sears, sear disconnects, extractors, ejectors, magazine springs, front and rear sights, laser sights, and pistol slides and insisting on using them here?

Three times I will believe it is a deliberate attempt to get the thread closed because some people don't like what the thread subject implies. That is a very pathetic effort to silence those with whom you disagree.
Click to expand...
That's not going to happen.

Not all safety switches that are separate from the trigger are "thumb operated". There are grip safeties that are operated by the heel of the palm.

We have covered this found before. Some firearms have been fired by the activation of the trigger by shirt tails, straps, or faulty holsters. That in spite of the fact that a trigger could be described functionally as a "finger operated firing lever."

That's one reason that I have a separate manual safety switch on each of my semi autos, and it's one reason why I have descried against carrying one of the most popular handguns in existence. Another is that someone else may pick up the firearm and pull the trigger.

Remington has just introduced a new compact 9MM pistol that has only a grip safety. I'll have to think long and hard about it.
 
Originally Posted by testpilot
For example, a stupid person with a Glock cannot say, "I pulled the trigger when I was not supposed to fire because I thought it was on 'safe'."
Click to expand...
Well, a stupid person with a Glock can certainly say -- and most always do -- "I pulled the trigger because I thought the gun was unloaded (or the chamber was empty)"

Let's understand that the chief cause of NDs when rule #3 is violated stems exactly from folks believing their pistol was empty or not in a firing condition -- NOT because they thought it was on safe.

Really, this thread just seems to be a certain individual's desire to carry on with a previous thread that was closed after much the same silliness.

RX-79g: be advised that "Test Pilot" isn't a real pilot; he's previously admitted his nom de forum comes from his video-gaming proclivities.
 
non de forum said:
Three times I will believe it is a deliberate attempt to get the thread closed because some people don't like what the thread subject implies. That is a very pathetic effort to silence those with whom you disagree.
Click to expand...

You believe incorrectly.

Kleanbore described my feelings on the "manual inhibitor" foolishness perfectly.

As far as the thread subject is concerned, I believe that both sides have valid viewpoints.

It should be obvious that no manual safety means that there is no chance of inadvertently leaving your weapon on safe.

It should be equally obvious that for a trained person to get hits on a target as quickly and accurately as possible that there is nothing superior to a single-action trigger with a manual safety. There's a reason that competitive open-class pistol competitors and high-end military and police units use single-actions with a manual safety.

All current pistols with no manual safety are simply trading off the shooting capability of a superior trigger for the assurance that the pistol cannot accidentally be left on safe if needed. Take your choice, doesn't mean much to me. I currently shoot 1911's and Glocks, firing hand thumb subconciously does the same thing when my finger goes to the trigger no matter which gun I'm using.
 
Last edited:
Back to the subject: keeping one's finger off the trigger works perfectly, if it is done consistently by everyone who ever handles the firearm, until the time comes to holster the firearm.

It may not suffice then. Something other than the finger can fire the gun.

And it will likely not be done constantly. There are videos of highly trained officers unconsciously touching their triggers during force encounters before deciding to fire.

And then there is the question of the unintentional discharge when the trigger is properly on the trigger.

It's about more than trigger finger discipline.

It's about more than whether there is a safety switch.
  • It's about whether there to have a separate grip safey.
  • It's about whether to have a magazine disconnect.
  • It's about the weight and length of the trigger pull.
  • It's about whether to carry a revolver that can be cocked for single action use.
  • It's about whether there is a hammer drop switch.
  • It's about whether to carry in Condition 1, 2, or 3.
  • It's about holster design.

There are pluses and minuses to every choice in every one of those areas.

The magazine disconnect can prevent accidents, but it can prevent a defender from being able to fire. Elmer Keith though it was a good thing.

Too light a trigger pull can result in unintentional discharges. Don't take my word for it, consult a police armorer. Too heavy a pull makes it difficult for me to shoot effectively.

Someone else can pick up your firearm in the brief moment in which you were turned the other way and pull the trigger.

This is all about two things: human factors engineering and risk management.

Different people will reach different conclusions.

Personally, I prefer a single action automatic with a good trigger, a thumb safety, and a grip safety to all other systems, but I don't always carry one.

Most often, I carry a reliable, striker-fired compact pistol with a thumb-operated safety, a loaded chamber indicator, and a magazine disconnect. I carry it in a high grade holster.
 
Kleanbore,

Thanks for the response and for not closing the thread. I agree that Testpilot’s affectation is silly and for clarity standard terminology is preferable. Unfortunately no one has demonstrated the ability to get him to stop. I think the repeated easy to make criticisms (cheap shots) have only encouraged him. I was hoping ignoring him would at least prevent filling the thread with dreck. I was also hoping other posters would stop taking pleasure in ridicule that has clearly shown itself to be ineffective and detrimental to the debate.

I am very familiar with various types of mechanical safeties and safety features on firearms. I understand why you have made the choices you have. The pros and cons of semiautos without manual safeties have enough support from individuals with the respect of the shooting community to indicate the debate on the subject is far from settled either way. This thread was never intended to settle that debate. It was to give the example of the experience of two well known and respected individuals that supports one side of the debate. Thanks again for your response, for not closing the thread, and posting information that is relevant to the debate.
 
Last edited:
I'm afraid I do not see comments about something as affected as the use of " manual firing inhibitor thumb lever" to describe something that is commonly called a safety switch as "cheap shots".
Click to expand...
It's not the objection that is cheapshot. Putting words in someone's mouth and distorting other's position is.
 
Last edited:
Well, a stupid person with a Glock can certainly say -- and most always do -- "I pulled the trigger because I thought the gun was unloaded (or the chamber was empty)"
Click to expand...
They can also say that with a pistol with a manual firing inhibitor thumb lever.
 
Posted by 45_auto:
Better for what? Uneducated people shooting themselves?
Click to expand...
YOU said trying to make equpments fool proof with more devices only makes better fools.

I did not say that. You did.

I'm glad that you agree that we're equally idiotic for using that stupid "inhibitor lever" terminology. Maybe there's hope for you in the new year!
Click to expand...

I never agreed with you. YOU said what YOU did was idiotic. Not me.
 
Kleanbore said:
Back to the subject: keeping one's finger off the trigger works perfectly, if it is done consistently by everyone who ever handles the firearm, until the time comes to holster the firearm.

It may not suffice then. Something other than the finger can fire the gun.

And it will likely not be done constantly. There are videos of highly trained officers unconsciously touching their triggers during force encounters before deciding to fire.

And then there is the question of the unintentional discharge when the trigger is properly on the trigger.

It's about more than trigger finger discipline.

It's about more than whether there is a safety switch.
  • It's about whether there to have a separate grip safey.
  • It's about whether to have a magazine disconnect.
  • It's about the weight and length of the trigger pull.
  • It's about whether to carry a revolver that can be cocked for single action use.
  • It's about whether there is a hammer drop switch.
  • It's about whether to carry in Condition 1, 2, or 3.
  • It's about holster design.

There are pluses and minuses to every choice in every one of those areas.

The magazine disconnect can prevent accidents, but it can prevent a defender from being able to fire. Elmer Keith though it was a good thing.

Too light a trigger pull can result in unintentional discharges. Don't take my word for it, consult a police armorer. Too heavy a pull makes it difficult for me to shoot effectively.

Someone else can pick up your firearm in the brief moment in which you were turned the other way and pull the trigger.

This is all about two things: human factors engineering and risk management.

Different people will reach different conclusions.

Personally, I prefer a single action automatic with a good trigger, a thumb safety, and a grip safety to all other systems, but I don't always carry one.

Most often, I carry a reliable, striker-fired compact pistol with a thumb-operated safety, a loaded chamber indicator, and a magazine disconnect. I carry it in a high grade holster.
Click to expand...


What aspects of “human factors engineering and risk management” do you consider to make your choice to carry a pistol that does not have the characteristics of your preferred system?

Pistols with your preferred characteristics are now available in size and weight comparable to what you “most often” carry so why not carry one of those?

If you can discard your preferred system most of the time why not all the time?

Is there any quantifiable data supporting the belief semiautomatics with manual safeties reduce NDs or is the belief only supported by anecdotal evidence and “common sense”?

With so many semiautomatics without manual safeties being used during the previous two decades do statistics indicate that the percentage of negligent discharges pistol users have has increased per capita compared to previous decades.

Are there statistics indicating users of semiautomatics without manual safeties have a higher percentage of NDs than the users other semiautomatics?

Could the occasions that a manual safety on a semiautomatic was clearly shown to have prevented an ND be so statistically small that the advantage of having one is less of an advantage than not having one?

I don’t expect you or any one person to be able to answer all these questions and provide references supporting the answers. I am not sure if some of the questions can be answered. I am sure that answers based on anecdotal evidence and “common sense” are often completely wrong. Absent indisputable data we can only make choices based on the anecdotal evidence we choose to believe and what our own “common sense” dictates, and never be sure they are the best choices.
 
I think the notion of the safe being "keeping the finger off the trigger" is fine provided:

(DISCLAIMER - In my examples I refer to inside the pocket carry)

*A pocket holster is used..

*The trigger is of sufficient weight and correct pull length..

*No obstructions or other objects are kept in that pocket so as to interfere..

*The shooter is properly trained to engage the trigger at the right time..

That being said I still like the idea of an additional manual safety. Part of the training for use of the firearm is to automatically disengage that safety when removing or drawing the gun for use.

For something very closed to a sensitive area of my body it is additional peace of mind intended to supplement, not supplant the trigger.
 
The whole thing is silly. Don't like guns with safeties? - Don't buy them. Don't like guns without safeties? Don't buy them. I'm not gonna be convinced I'll forget to disengage the safety on my Beretta because in the heat of the moment I'll suddenly lose tens of thousands of repetitions of pulling out a gun and disengaging the safety while presenting.

That could never happen and I'll never be convinced I'm actually in more danger from a gun with a safety. You might be...someone else might be. Not me. I train like I'm gonna fight every time I touch a gun.

Guns can go off if *you* don't pull the trigger. As already pointed out, belts, hooks, defective holsters, etc, can pull the trigger for you and if you carry like I carry which is AIWB I don't want a gun pointed at my junk going off because I fell on an uncleared/icy sidewalk and something got thru to the trigger and pulled it for me. Not likely - it can and has happened which is why I have guns with safeties.

The other thing no one has brought up is that I don't feel safe with *you* not having a safety on *your* gun because when the thing that you don't believe can happen *happens* and your gun goes off when you didn't pull the trigger (like *you* fall on the icy sidewalk and impact a hand railing that activates yer trigger) the bullet might hit *me*! The whole concept is silly. If you think safeties are for sissies don't buy a gun that has them. But you will never convince me that I'm less safe with a safety on my gun or stupid because I need/want one.

It's ridiculous.

VooDoo
 
Pistols with your preferred characteristics are now available in size and weight comparable to what you “most often” carry so why not carry one of those?
Click to expand...

Can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, I am left handed. Not all pistols offering thumb safeties are designed for left handed or ambidextrous use.
 
Vodoun da Vinci said:
The whole thing is silly. Don't like guns with safeties? - Don't buy them. Don't like guns without safeties? Don't buy them. I'm not gonna be convinced I'll forget to disengage the safety on my Beretta because in the heat of the moment I'll suddenly lose tens of thousands of repetitions of pulling out a gun and disengaging the safety while presenting.

That could never happen and I'll never be convinced I'm actually in more danger from a gun with a safety. You might be...someone else might be. Not me. I train like I'm gonna fight every time I touch a gun.

Guns can go off if *you* don't pull the trigger. As already pointed out, belts, hooks, defective holsters, etc, can pull the trigger for you and if you carry like I carry which is AIWB I don't want a gun pointed at my junk going off because I fell on an uncleared/icy sidewalk and something got thru to the trigger and pulled it for me. Not likely - it can and has happened which is why I have guns with safeties.

The other thing no one has brought up is that I don't feel safe with *you* not having a safety on *your* gun because when the thing that you don't believe can happen *happens* and your gun goes off when you didn't pull the trigger (like *you* fall on the icy sidewalk and impact a hand railing that activates yer trigger) the bullet might hit *me*! The whole concept is silly. If you think safeties are for sissies don't buy a gun that has them. But you will never convince me that I'm less safe with a safety on my gun or stupid because I need/want one.

It's ridiculous.

VooDoo
Click to expand...


Such spectacular, vehemently angry, multiple expressions of certain belief are really attention getting. I can understand your opinion without the fireworks and I am very aware some people share your sentiments. Since I did not see anything to the contrary, I must assume your beliefs are supported only by anecdotal evidence and what you think is common sense. I am also certain of something. I feel less safe when vehemently angry people have guns than when people have semiautomatics without manual safeties.
 
JRH6856 said:
Can't speak for anyone else, but in my case, I am left handed. Not all pistols offering thumb safeties are designed for left handed or ambidextrous use.
Click to expand...


That is an accurate observation about thumb safeties.

Are you implying you are willing to use a pistol that you feel is less safe due to a lack of a left hand thumb safety because you can't get one that does have one?

Considering how many small and low weight pistols with thumb safeties are available I do not understand how a right handed person would need to choose something else if they felt a pistol was less safe without one.
 
When I worked in uniform, I carried a 1911 or Browning HiPower, cocked and locked. It is what I trained with, it is what I am most familiar with, it is what I am most comfortable with. As a backup, or CCW piece, I have a Llama .380 that I fitted with an ambi saftey for a 1911. Modern, compact 9mms are about the same size as the Llama but there are very few with left handed thumb safties.

So yes, I am considering retraining myself for a different system, albeit one that I have never been fully comfortable with if only to expand my range of options.
 
JRH6856 said:
When I worked in uniform, I carried a 1911 or Browning HiPower, cocked and locked. It is what I trained with, it is what I am most familiar with, it is what I am most comfortable with. As a backup, or CCW piece, I have a Llama .380 that I fitted with an ambi saftey for a 1911. Modern, compact 9mms are about the same size as the Llama but there are very few with left handed thumb safties.

So yes, I am considering retraining myself for a different system, albeit one that I have never been fully comfortable with if only to expand my range of options.
Click to expand...

JRH6856,

I have some understanding of what is ahead of you if you make the decision to retrain. I grew up worshiping the 1911 as a holy relic. Jeff Cooper was an enormous influence on me. I participated in IPSC during its infancy and formative years. Learned my 1911 pistolsmithing skills at Rock Island Arsenal’s National Match School. I stopped doing serious shooting of 1911s in 1991 when I picked up the Glock and attended the Glock Armors Course. It is 23 years later and I still have put more rounds down range with a .45ACP 1911 than any other pistol. Practicing for IPSC is why. It did not take long to feel as competent with the Glock as I ever felt with the 1911. Do I feel fully comfortable with the Glock system? No. I do believe that discomfort makes me focus more on my trigger finger location, and safe gun handling and holstering than I ever did with the 1911. I think that makes me safer with the Glock than the 1911. Mechanically this is true because the 1911s I used did not have firing pin blocks. I frequently CCW a compact, single stack, 9mm with no manual safety. I use a good holster and the same safety techniques as I do with the Glock. There is no having to think about what type of system am I using and what is the correct safety procedure. Good Luck to you reaching what you consider a satisfactory decision.
 
When I received my initial training with both revolver and pistol, there was no concern over keeeping the finger out of the trigger guard. I was taught to keep my finger against the inside front of the trigger guard. The firing action was to pull the trigger on the revolver, or disengage the safety and pull the trigger on the semi-auto. When I shot IPSC, there was more focus on trigger discipline, but the idea of keeping the finger completely off the trigger was one that became extremely important after the Glock came along and the trigger (and trigger finger) beame the safety.

It seems to be considered a no brainer today, but the trigger finger was not such an issue back then because other safety mechanisims were in existance on the weapon that significantly lessened the perceived importance of keeping the finger away from the trigger until ready to fire.

On the GLock, pressure on the trigger places the gun in a ready to fire state. Keeping the finger off of the trigger is the 1st line of safety.

This is not the case on a 1911. Pressing the grip safety and disengaging the thumb safety are the 1st and 2nd level of safety and boty are necessary to place the gun in a ready to fire state. Pulling the trigger just fires the gun and is the last line of safety.

Each type of safety or "fire prevention mechanism" on the 1911 protects against a different problem.

The thumb safety blocks the sear require a positive manual disengagement. It protects against the sear being tripped by inadvertent or unconcious pressure on the trigger or against the sear tripping dure to being jarred.

The grip safety prevents movement of the trigger unless the weapon is grasped securely and positively.

The half-cock notch is a fail-safe should the other safeties fail under sever impact.

There are drawbacks.

The thumb safety, especially and ambidextrous one can be brused off if bumped accidentally. It can also get brushed on unexpectedly though not likely.

The grip safety can prevent one from firing with an injured hand or won made slippery by blood or fluids.

The firing pin block on the Series 80 strikes me as a solution looking for a problemm but that can be said to some extent for all safety systems.

These have been abandoned in hte Glock pattern in favor of a safety that prevents firing unless the trigger is pressed. But there is nothing to protexct against an indvertent, unintentional, or unconscious trigger press except the trigger finger discipline of the operator which is the least dependable component of the system.

Personally, I wouldn't object to having all of the above on one gun as each has its own strength. The easiest one to do without is the grip safety as I have done many times with my HiPower and have carried 1911s with the grip safety pinned. I think the trigger mounted safety more than adequately replaces it.

I have discussed this in other threads, but while I find Glocks easy to shoot, I find the grip angle of the Glock to be extremely uncomfortable and this seems to have become worse as I have gotten older. I expect I will be looking at something other than a Glock.
 
The NYPD authorizes three handguns, the Glock 19, the S&W 5946, and the SIG 226. Roughly equally distributed, so figure 10,000 of each in service. At the time I retired, EVERY reported ND was with the Glock. ZERO with the other two. I still have friends on the job and it is still the same.

Now, all officers are trained the same way, but for some reason, the Glock owners are the ones having the trouble. Wanna know why? because of the lack of a hammer. The three guns are all safety-less, but the Smith and Sig have a hammer. I recall vividly the range commands when we were told to holster. "finger off the trigger, thumb on hammer, and holster". Resting your thumb on the back of the hammer will absolutely prevent the gun from being fired as it is being holstered. Ever reholster during a felony car stop as you move in to cuff? How about after running three blocks? Rolling around with some drunk? Not as easy as you think. The other common reason for an ND is during cleaning. The Glock requires you to pull the trigger to field strip.

Now I know all the Glock fanboys are gonna take a break from ironing their Glock t-shirts and sharpening their Glock knives to start screaming about "keep your finger off the trigger", but the fact is that human beings makes mistakes, and having an safety or even a hammer to rest your thumb on lessens those odds.

Take a walk over to youtube and watch some of the gun videos. Totally incompetent boobs showing off their new hardware. I have left gun ranges due to the unsafe practices I have seen there. The irony is that the Glock (and other striker fired semi auto's) is marketed to the inexperienced! No need to actually learn anything! Just point and shoot! Picking up a gun and pulling the trigger is totally intuitive. 3 year olds have shot themselves or their friends. I prefer an extra layer of safety.

As for the helicopter crash, something tells me the passengers were highly trained weapon users if they're hunting hogs in a helicopter. Ayoob sure is. So I would expect them to keep their fingers off the trigger. But the guy who buys a gun and shoots a box of ammo before putting it in his sock drawer? Not as much confidence in him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
The safety on a Smith & Wesson M&P...
Replies
2
Views
528
mattf7184
M
E
  • Locked
Trigger finger on a Glock?
Replies
11
Views
696
possum
P
J
  • Locked
the glock-revolver safety analogy (re: cocked tda sig)
Replies
10
Views
1K
loplop
L
Skribs
  • Locked
How dangerous would a Glock be sans trigger safety?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
127
Views
10K
j1
J
T
  • Locked
Theory: Where does the safety really belong?
Replies
16
Views
580
TAB
T
Back
Top